Ms Leilani Farha:

I thank members for their questions. I will respond first to Deputy O'Brien's question around a constitutional versus legislative approach and a constitutional and legislative approach. When I hear that a State is in the midst of making constitutional amendments, or is at least open to constitutional amendments, and it does not currently have the right to housing in its Constitution, my first response is that it should go for it. More than 80 countries around the world have constitutional protections around the right to housing. Members are correct that many of those nations do not implement that right but they have it. I have worked for many years with people on low incomes and living in housing disadvantage and homelessness and I know how meaningful it is for people to have that constitutional right. It changes their relationship with the world in which they live. They feel validated and recognised as human beings and part of the human family. Human rights is about bringing us all together as a human family and recognising that we are all but humans. My advice, therefore, is to go for it constitutionally. Government worries are generally unfounded. Mercy Law has provided, and could provide even more, evidence that having a constitutionally enshrined right to housing is not the beast and the burden that some believe it to be. If I was in the Legislature I would be proud to support the idea of contributing to people's human rights.

On legislation, in my own country, Canada, I have been advocating for the right to adequate housing for many years. Canada is currently engaged in a process of adopting a national housing strategy based on human rights. Under the current Government, constitutional provision on the right to housing is off the books. It will not happen and so we have shifted our attention to a legislative approach. There is some merit in this approach. I do not know enough about Ireland and how this would work here but I am sure Mercy Law could, if it has not already done so, turn people's mind to instruct how this could be powerful, albeit not constitutional.

In terms of best practice, I would not go much further afield than the examples chosen in the report. Finland always comes out on top, particularly in the European context, because it is the only country that has reduced homelessness in the last two years. I work very closely with the Government of Finland because it supports my mandate, not in terms of resources, but politically. There is no doubt Finland is genuinely committed to addressing homelessness and inadequate housing. It has a broad understanding of what constitutes homelessness in that it considers anyone living in an institution to be homeless. Finland understands this in a deep way. Its first kick at the can to try to eliminate homelessness was, to its mind, unsuccessful in that while it did reduce homelessness it did not meet its target in this regard. It then decided to take another kick at the can. In doing so, it looked at the structural causes of homelessness and then set about developing policies and programmes that go deeply into those structural causes. In the last year, it has been quite successful, which shows its commitment. A constitutionally entrenched right to housing is part of its culture. One builds human rights culture through law and practice symbiotically. In terms of the other end of the spectrum I, too, would point to South Africa. The commonality with the case studies presented in the report before us today and my examples is a legally entrenched right to housing. This is where one will find the most success at both ends of the spectrum. South Africa has not ended homelessness and it is in a lot of trouble but it has made huge strides such that shack dwellers count on the constitutional right.

On Ireland's international human rights obligations, we talk about the progressive realisation of the right to adequate housing, which is the standard. Article 2 of the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights states that the right is to be progressively realised but not all aspects of the right are progressive. Under international human rights law it is understood that States do have immediate obligations. For example, there is an immediate obligation to address discrimination in housing. There is also an immediate obligation to address homelessness. The progressive realisation element does not kick in with homelessness at the first instance. In other words, states must act immediately, urgently and aggressively to address homelessness because there is a thin line between living homeless and dying. Human rights are supposed to protect us from this and so there is that immediate and urgent obligation.

With respect to what is stated under international human rights law in terms of what is adequate housing, there is a definition in an instrument called the General Comment No. 4, which lays out seven characteristics, two of which I will focus on now. The first is affordability. Affordability must be measured on the household income of the person or family. It is not based on what the market can bear or is charging. Rather, it is based on one's ability to pay, which makes sense. What is affordable to a household is what they can afford and not what the market can bear. The idea that affordability would be 80% of market value, which is used in many developed countries, would be inconsistent with international human rights norms. The second key characteristic of adequate housing is security of tenure, which I believe is important in the context of Ireland. As I said I have not been here long enough to really understand the situation here. I am aware that some of the new legislative provisions introduced have made things a little better but I understand from anecdotal information I received and from some of the reports I looked at, that there is still a security of tenure problem. We know why security of tenure is important. The worry and anxiety created by a lack of security of tenure can be crippling and debilitating. Also, the worry of losing one's home can cause all sorts of health and employment related problems. Yesterday evening I heard a young gentleman talking about how he and his wife had just had a baby, lost their home, were living in adequate housing that is overcrowded and facing homelessness. Is this what we want for our young families? Obviously not. None of us would wish that on anyone. I also met a woman in her late 50s who owing to insecure tenure had been bounced around and ended up homeless at age 57. She has some health issues that she cannot deal with when she is homeless and was recently given bedsit type accommodation. This is not acceptable for people in later stages of life. This women also does not have many family. When one is homeless one cannot deal with any crisis that emerges. Security of tenure is a cornerstone to the right to housing, for obvious reasons.